Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was seeking a grouping.

Crispin Blunt: With reference to the previous answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), does the Foreign Office understand the sense of injustice that is the principal motivating factor behind so much Islamist violence, and that a just settlement of the middle east peace process is an absolutely vital British national interest?

Cheryl Gillan: This year, the House passed a groundbreaking Act on autism, which was the first ever disability-specific legislation and recognised the unique nature and needs of people diagnosed with autism. How can a Government on the one hand legislate to recognise that unique condition, but on the other hand discount the expert medical advice reinforcing the point that, in this case, extradition is wholly inappropriate and potentially lethal to Gary? Quite frankly, is there no logic, justice or humanity left in the Government?

Alan Johnson: I think that they are reasonable actions. As for whether we would be in exactly in the same position if someone had been hacking into the United Kingdom's defences over a 12-month period, with the same effect and at that particular time, and if that person had left the messages that were left at that particular time, I am absolutely sure that Members would be outraged if the United States refused to extradite the person responsible to this country.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is being a little hasty in reaching any conclusions about a discrepancy in views between myself and my hon. Friends. I have just talked about the timetable, but there are other matters that I want to discuss that are related to the substance of the proposals, on which we have a great deal in common. It is not just about the time scale and process, it is about substance as well.
	I wish to touch on a point that the Exchequer Secretary glossed over, but which has caused a great deal of concern for both the ESC and the Treasury Committee-the constitutional nature of the powers in question. There was a debate in the Treasury Committee about whether the powers to be granted in the proposals before us have a legal basis. In written evidence to the Committee, Stuart Popham and Simon Gleeson of Clifford Chance wrote:
	"The ESAs will not have power to take decisions or to make rules-European law requires that these powers are reserved to the Commission, and we believe that this could not be changed without an amendment to the EU treaty. The attempt to give the committees the power to review the issue of whether individual national regulators have correctly implemented EU legislation appears to be an attempt to stretch this point."
	As we have seen, though, the ESAs will issue binding directions on compliance with EU law and on mediation between two regulators. If the power is to ensure compliance with the law that already exists, it is hard to see of what use it is. Is it a discretionary power or not? As it is presented, it is not clear, and the Commission itself seemed to allude to the same issue in the context of potential interference with the fiscal responsibility of member states when it stated:
	"Incorrect application of Community law cannot be justified by financial grounds. The remainder of the Authorities decisions are either not directed to individual supervisors, or non-binding, therefore by definition cannot have fiscal implications."
	In other words, member states must surely already be compliant with EU law, even on fiscal grounds, so no decision made by the ESAs could have fiscal consequences. Once again, therefore, we must ask what the power is for exactly.
	The confusion does not end there. Mr. Gleeson pointed out in his evidence to the Treasury Committee that if the power was found to be discretionary and was subsequently deployed, the European Court of Justice would be likely to consider any such directives
	"ultra vires to the treaty",
	and they would, as Stuart Popham put it, "cease to exist."

Christopher Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), a person who has proved time and again that he understands the issues and is a wise and sage voice in this debate.
	There is no question but that our financial institutions and the City are undergoing a difficult and challenging time, and there is no doubt that reform of our financial system is necessary. We need better and more effective oversight of the financial services sector, a banking system that properly supports small business, and recognition that the current tripartite system needs replacing. However, any changes made must not come at the expense of the City's competitiveness and ability to innovate.
	Last month the World Economic Forum announced that the City of London had overtaken New York as the world's leading financial centre. That is excellent news. The City's long-term success will play a key role in boosting our economy at home and the wider European economy. Given that the Government have given away the vital role of Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services to France, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to a politician who has a reputation for stringent protectionism, can the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the direct implications of this new appointment for the City of London? It is an extremely important point, which I hope the hon. Lady addresses when she winds up the debate shortly. Does she accept that future growth in this country could be undermined as a result? Why was not the Government's priority to ensure that that Commissioner's job came to the UK, for the reasons that I have just described?
	The proposals before us seek to create three European supervisory authorities with rule-making and binding mediation powers: the European banking authority, the European insurance and occupational pensions authority and the European securities and markets authority. The regulations also establish the European systemic risk board, which will allow for macro-prudential oversight of the financial system, but it is worth repeating some of the Treasury Committee's report, which was published earlier this month and has been referred to many times in this debate. It states:
	"There is a great...unease about the detail. There is still more unease about the speed with which it is hoped to agree them... the proposals will set in place a framework which should last for many decades, and there should be proper time for consideration."
	Does the Minister share the concerns of that Committee? If not, will she admit that the Government are placing the need for new systems of international regulation above the need for careful consideration and impact assessment? Does she envisage the proposals being approved by 2 December, which after all is only tomorrow, as the Swedish presidency has called for? I am not clear whether she suggested earlier that things will go through as planned or whether she was sitting on the fence, because she was not quite clear about what will actually happen. She has a valuable opportunity this evening to outline in more detail what she envisages happening at the discussions tomorrow.
	I am sure I do not have to stress that putting forward without proper examination proposals that have far-reaching and serious consequences for the UK's financial sector could genuinely be detrimental to us here in the United Kingdom. I understand that the Government had hoped to secure a rotating chairmanship of the ESRB, but they failed to do so. Will the Minister elaborate on those negotiations? They are crucial to the way in which we consider the proposals before us.
	Are the Government satisfied that the structural arrangements for the ESRB are in Britain's interest? From today's discussions, I am not so sure that there is a great consensus on that in the Chamber, and the Minister owes it to the House to be clear about that. The Treasury Committee's report also highlighted concerns about the size of the board. What is the Minister's assessment of the Committee's comments in that respect? Does she accept that with more than 60 institutions represented, the decision making of the ESRB will be neither effective nor efficient?
	I have concerns about the capacity of the three European supervisory authorities to give binding technical standards to member states and, directly, to institutions in emergency circumstances. I should like to put to the Minister yet again the question that has been posed several times in the debate: can she be more specific about what will qualify as an emergency circumstance? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the powers of national regulators-this is the crucial part-are not undermined? Any decisions that have fiscal implications for the British taxpayer should, without a doubt, remain with national regulators, but it is unclear how that corresponds to the supervisory authority's ability to make binding decisions. I should very much like the Minister to clarify that point to me and to the House this evening.
	Following that, there is a concern that the powers associated with the ESA might run contrary to what is allowed under current EU legislation, so what is being done to resolve those very reasonable concerns? The Minister will be aware that some hedge fund managers and other financial service professionals are moving offshore, to places such as New York and Switzerland, to avoid tighter EU regulations and heavier tax burdens. That has to be worrying news, and the Government must do all they can to ensure that private firms are given the proper incentives to operate in the United Kingdom, albeit ethically and responsibly. That must be taken into account when we consider how we operate from here on in, given what has gone on in the past.
	What is the Minister's response to the news that some private firms are choosing to move out of the UK? That point has not been addressed in the debate, so I hope that she will spend a couple of minutes telling the House her view, because that move has wider implications for the financial centre in the City of London, for the companies dealing in hedge funds and for all the other organisations and companies that serve that industry. That move will have ramifications for employment prospects in the City and beyond as a result. Is she concerned that it will set a precedent, and that further regulation will exacerbate the problem?
	I worry that reform of financial services regulation will harm the UK's financial services sector if it is undertaken without due care and, most importantly, consideration. We must ensure that our economic interests are fully protected and, importantly, upheld, but Ministers have been too slow to defend in Brussels the interests of the City. That was demonstrated neatly by the recent internal markets commissionership, as I have already described. I wait to see how the Government approach the redrafted directive on alternative investment fund managers, and I call on Ministers to ensure that any proposals enhance the UK's financial industry, rather than damaging it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks described.
	As I stated as the start of my speech, the City is the world's financial centre and the UK Government should lead and drive the debate about regulatory reform. So far, all the evidence points towards Ministers taking the back seat. That is the wrong way to go forward in the best interests of our nation and our standing on the world stage.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed I can. It is a live issue, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. In fact, I met fishermen this morning and discussed that very issue, among others. Officials and I were in touch with fisheries leaders throughout the weekend, and we continue to be so. It is unfortunate that this year's discussions between the EU and Norway and other non-EU states is more difficult than normal, for reasons that I suspect the hon. Gentleman is aware of, albeit for the right reasons as well. Where we need to take enforcement action on fishing vessels within and outside the EU, it is right that we should do so, but that aspect has perhaps coloured this year's discussions.
	We are actively engaged in those discussions. We want to see a positive outcome, but we remain in live discussion with industry leaders and skippers as they go forward. I pay tribute not only to those stakeholders and the industry, which are engaged in that process as we speak, but to officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, who are also out there fighting the good fight. However, it is difficult this year.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to cut my remaining remarks short. However, I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) about the sustainability of communities and the fleets that are part of those communities, because it is relevant to a vital part of the debate.
	As we implement common fisheries policy reform, we need to engage in a frank discussion throughout the devolved areas about how we can deliver a prosperous future-let us scrap the word "sustainable" for the moment-for widely variegated coastal communities that have different types of vessels and experience different aspects or isolation and remoteness. I think that part of the solution is not protectionism per se, but the willingness of Ministers to stand up and say how vessels and fisheries can be made more profitable, how they can produce better harvests, and how fishermen can own production from the point at which the fish are landed to the point of marketing.
	I have used this analogy before, and I am sorry that it comes from my own back yard, but we should bear in mind what has been achieved in the marketing of Welsh lamb. Ten years ago, Welsh lamb producers were producing only cheap carcases from the top of the Welsh hills. Now they represent one of our biggest success stories. They have taken command of the line of supply all the way to the supermarket in a co-operative manner, and have added value. Some of the fisheries in the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and others are high-quality mixed fisheries which should not be selling at bog-standard prices-not that there is such a thing-to whoever comes in. There should be a much cleverer way of owning the profits resulting from that supply chain.
	As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many other Members wish to speak. Let me do what I said I would do, and deal with some of the other aspects rapidly. I mentioned illegal fishing earlier. I am pleased to say that we have taken a leading role on that, and are making good progress. A European Union regulation that will come into force next month introduces new rules on imports and exports of fish and fish products to and from the EU, making it more difficult for illegally caught fish to enter the EU from non-EU countries. We have been working closely not just with importers and exporters but with nations that will be affected, including developing countries. We are trying to work with those countries to encourage them to engage in better governance and to tackle illegal and unregulated fisheries so that they can take advantage of entry to the European market.
	The UK is also leading the way in protecting commercially fished species. Action is needed urgently if bluefin tuna is to be commercially sustainable. We have publicly supported Monaco's proposal to give this species the highest protection possible under the convention on international trade in endangered species. As a result of the international pressure, and with the strong support of the United Kingdom, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas demonstrated at its annual meeting its willingness to take tougher measures to protect bluefin tuna. However, we shall keep a close watch on whether the measures are implemented quickly enough to conserve this iconic species.
	We have been working hard to protect sharks, skates and rays, which are in serious decline. We ensured that the Council's conclusions on the European Commission's shark plan of action, agreed in April, were strong, clear and robust. We are proceeding with work under this plan of action ourselves, funding scientific research that will help us to protect and manage those threatened stocks. The UK has made a bold decision to increase the protection offered to sharks by banning the removal of shark fins at sea by UK-registered fishing vessels. Any sharks caught by UK vessels will now have to be landed with their fins attached to their bodies, so there is now no risk of wasteful shark finning.
	The UK is also dealing with the incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries operations. Every year many seabirds die unnecessarily, and that is seriously affecting some seabird populations. Internationally, we are working through the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and we are putting pressure on regional fisheries management organisations to reduce by-catch. We are playing a leading role in championing seabird protection in Europe by challenging the European Commission at the November Council meeting to introduce an EU seabird plan of action.
	A major theme of our work is integrating fishing with other marine activities. I have mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, with which Members will be very familiar; I thank them for their support in putting it on the statute book. It establishes a new system of marine planning. Along with the devolved Administrations, we have published high-level marine objectives to which we have all agreed, and which will feed into the marine policy statement that we are developing to guide the marine planning process under the Act. For the first time, we will be planning all the activities in the our seas in a properly integrated way.
	The Act introduces better licensing for marine developments, and the conservation of marine biodiversity through marine conservation zones. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee have set up four regional projects, which are doing extremely well. The conservation zones will help us to deliver our commitments under the European Commission's marine strategy framework directive, which requires us to achieve "good environmental status" for our seas by 2020.
	The Act also creates the Marine Management Organisation, which will be the Government's delivery body in English waters and UK offshore waters. I have appointed the chairman-designate, and staff from the Marine and Fisheries Agency, which is being subsumed into the Marine Management Organisation, are already moving to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in preparation for the vesting of the organisation in April. In order to put this to rest, I want to put it clearly on the record that, contrary to speculation in the regional press, we have measures in place to ensure that levels of service are maintained during the transition. The MFA is currently recruiting new members of staff for its headquarters, to replace those who are not relocating. The first two groups of new recruits have already completed training in London and are now working in Newcastle. More new staff will begin work over the coming months, complementing the experienced staff in the 18 offices-which we often forget about-all around the UK coast. So it will be business as usual.
	At the local level, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will ensure that we have an integrated approach to our marine resources. They will replace sea fisheries committees, and they will modernise inshore fisheries management in England. They must seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources of their districts with the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation. They will draw on local knowledge to solve local problems through local decision making. Following consultation, I have decided that there will be 10 inshore fisheries and conservation districts. Last month, we brought together members and staff of the sea fisheries committees to discuss how the new authorities can best respond to their new duties, using the achievements of the sea fisheries committees as their springboard.
	Having sprinted through my speech in order to leave time for other contributions, I hope Members will agree that over the last year we have made significant progress towards achieving sustainable fisheries and integrating fishing with other marine activities. We have moved forward in protecting our marine environment, and progress on common fisheries policy reform and other initiatives are good news for fish stocks and fishermen. Although there will be difficult choices in the coming year, we have firm foundations on which to build. I look forward to hearing the views of Members.

Andrew George: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell): we need protected time in which to undertake this debate in future, so that we do not lose time because of other business. Many hon. Members wish to take part, and I shall do my utmost to make my remarks as quickly as possible so that we allow as many hon. Members to speak as we can.
	We use this debate as an opportunity both to demonstrate our appreciation of those in the industry, especially the catching sector, who are engaged in the most hazardous profession, and to convey our sympathies to the families and colleagues of those men who engage in this important industry to put fish on our tables and who are lost at sea.
	I pay tribute to the Minister and agree with about 90 per cent. of what he said. I shall try to concentrate on the areas where we disagree, rather than on those where we agree. In that respect, I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), because, having heard a decade of fantasy from the Conservatives, I think it useful and helpful to hear that the party has turned around and is now engaged in constructive dialogue about the future of the fishing industry in relation to its international objectives with the rest of Europe.
	The negotiations are very difficult. The Minister will be aware that the main, very important fishing port of Newlyn in my constituency, which I hope he will visit soon, had a troubled year. It is now, however, looking positively to the future. However, many challenges affect my constituency and others. They include the challenges from the change to the regulation on under-10 metre vessels. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will mention recreational sea anglers and the regulations affecting them. In an intervention on the Minister, I also mentioned that two of the five special areas of conservation-the special protection areas-are within my constituency. Their likely impact should be a good opportunity for the Government and Natural England to show that, in fact, conservation and a sustainable fishing industry can work together. We will watch that one closely. Further challenges include the roll-out of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the implementation of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and I congratulate the Minister on his decision to retain the integrity of the current boundaries of the sea fisheries committees.
	I shall emphasise a theme in my contribution. On the future of this industry, we do not envisage the "them and us" culture of the past, with the fishing industry working against those enforcing the regulations and the scientists, or vice versa. Instead, we envisage everyone working together, with the shared objectives of a sustainable industry-scientists and regulators working with the industry, and the industry often leading the debate on constructive proposals for its future.
	I want to deal with the annual Fisheries Council, common fisheries policy reform, and the Green Paper, and to look at constructive ways forward. The Minister will be aware, as he has been through this already, that we will no doubt again have the absurdity of the 11th-hour brinkmanship of overnight negotiations as the fishing nations come together to resolve the remaining issues of debate and disagreement. I wish him well in those discussions. Of course, we agree that decisions should be based on sound science, but what do we do if the science is not there or if there has been insufficient recent scientific assessment? That has bedevilled much of our debate in years gone by. Throughout area 7, many of the scientific assessments are based on last year's, not this year's, assessments. What are we to do in those circumstances? I hope that the Minister will say that he is working towards remedying that situation early in 2010. Scientists, the industry, DEFRA, the regional advisory councils and the European Commission need to work together to address it.
	Another theme that runs through those negotiations, which possibly affects areas 6 and 7 more than others, is the "use or lose it" method, which results in perverse outcomes-for example, the Cornish fishermen lose out if the French do not catch their quota. If quotas are not rolled over, there is also the perverse incentive whereby fishermen are encouraged to catch rather than to preserve their stock. I hope that the Minister will take that into account in his negotiations in the Fisheries Council.
	The practice of quota swapping increasingly happens between nations. As a result of the establishment of the RACs, Cornish fishermen are working well with French fishermen, and that is happening elsewhere, too. Surely that is a beneficial outcome. It is better to develop international relations by joint working within the RACs. I understand that that is not yet sanctioned or supported by the Minister and his Department, so I hope that he will take that point on board.
	The Minister mentioned the need to preserve spurdogs, porbeagle sharks, skates and rays. Those are non-target species, and rightly so, but they are an unavoidable by-catch in many of the sectors that we are talking about. I hope that he will work with the industry to try to ensure that we reduce that by-catch, as the measures proposed in the settlement for the Fisheries Council will not save a single spurdog, porbeagle shark, skate or ray. He has received a letter from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, dated 27 November, which contains some significant proposals that I hope he will take into account.
	I think that we are all reading from the same page in the debate on common fisheries policy reform. We want it to be more devolved on the basis of better science, better monitoring and better, more even enforcement across Europe, with more buy-in, based on a constructive dialogue, from an industry incentivised to promote long-term objectives and sustainability. However, the remaining issue, which we often come back to, is the role of total allowable catches and quotas in the future of the CFP. I think we can also all agree, as we have tended to do so in all the debates that I have engaged in, that quotas are a blunt instrument. They create the obscenity of discarding fish, they create a barrier to new entrants, they are almost useless in protecting stock in mixed fisheries, particularly ultra-mixed fisheries such as those in my area, and they are perceived as often being based on arbitrary assessments and threadbare evidence.
	There are many other criticisms of TACs and quotas. However, the problem is that as soon as one starts to think of getting rid of them, the industry says that the problem is that the most highly valued stock-in my area, Dover sole and turbot, for example-would be the first to be plundered and would therefore slip down the value chain. Moreover, that approach would hit the areas that are as close as possible to port, particularly when fuel prices are high. It would not work. I have noticed that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations is very clear about wanting a system strongly based on quotas.
	The problem with discards is how to distinguish between intended and unintended over-quota by-catches. That has been a conundrum for the regulators and will continue to be. If we got rid of quotas altogether, those who had invested properly would not be properly rewarded for it in future quotas and licences.
	The hon. Member for Newbury referred to the NFFO's proposed sustainable fishing plans, which are clearly the way forward. It has stated that a future CFP should be:
	"The catching and gathering of marine resources for the benefit of humankind in ways that do not prejudice future generations".
	I would add that that should probably include their appreciation of a healthy and diverse marine environment. The culture has changed for the better over the past decade, and there is a strong and constructive dialogue. The industry is working constructively with marine scientists, and there are two good examples of that. The first is the Cornish Trevose ground closure, which has now been in operation for four years. It was designed for cod recovery, and anecdotally it is working. We have not yet had a review of the impact that it is having, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is one. Has it displaced effort elsewhere, and what contribution has it made to the spawning stock biomass, sustainable yields and the recovery of cod and other species? Knowing that would be particularly helpful.
	The second example, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is an excellent initiative largely driven by the industry in Scotland-the Scottish conservation credits scheme, which was introduced last February. They are Celts, but they are rather laggardly Celts, because they are slightly behind the Cornish, but never mind. We will forgive them for that-at least they are ahead of the Anglo-Saxons. The scheme is based on voluntarily closed areas, changes in gear, the management of effort and the maintenance of days at sea.
	The industry has come up not only with those two excellent initiatives, which are already working, but with something of which I hope the Minister will take account-the sustainable fishing plans. The hon. Member for Newbury has already described them, so I do not need to. I hope that the Minister will take into account what hon. Members have said and ensure that the plans become the basis on which we can build an agenda for the future in which the industry is keyed in and working constructively with scientists, marine conservationists and law enforcers. There must be greater teamwork, with all of us working together, rather than the "them and us" culture of the past.

Bill Wiggin: I begin by praising the work of the Angling Trust, whose headquarters are in Leominster, in my constituency. I am very proud that it has chosen to base itself there. Herefordshire has the famous River Wye, the finest salmon river in England. The Angling Trust came into effect in January 2009-the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and I were there-and it has provided a unified voice for angling needs, which is a tremendous asset. Some 4 million anglers contribute £1 billion to the economy and support more than 20,000 jobs. The trust has done a good job of keeping the interests of angling to the fore in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that it is essential that angling interests are properly represented on inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and are not just lumped in with other interests. They need a proper voice.
	Angling is a great inclusive sport. I would also like to pay tribute to the organisations that support disabled angling, particularly the British Disabled Angling Association. Unfortunately, last year the Government hit disabled anglers with a one-third increase in their fishing licence fees, and 140,000 senior and disabled anglers are now paying more for their concessionary rates.
	In a written answer to me, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), then a DEFRA Minister, confirmed in April 2008 that there would be another review of the concessionary rates for the licence fee in 2010. I hope that this Minister will ensure that that review takes place and that angling groups and disabled anglers, in particular, are fully included in that review and that the concessionary rates do not remain as they are but go down so that more disabled anglers find it easier to go fishing.
	Article 47 of the related EU Commission regulation is the other serious concern against which anglers have been battling. It would take the amount of fish caught by anglers and put it in with national quotas. As for the progress that has been made, it is a case of so far, so good. I tabled early-day motion 528 on this matter last year and I think that the European Economic and Social Committee has highlighted the impact on the commercial sector and amended the wording. However, although I welcome the progress, we have to be careful. Some of the terms in the existing wording allow the Council to introduce "specific management measures", including catching declarations and fishing authorisations, where it is thought that a recreational fishery is having a "significant impact." The danger may have abated, but it has not gone away. I hope that the Minister will keep the House updated on such proposals and ensure that we veto them if the opportunity arises in Council.
	The Minister mentioned the bluefin tuna. It is a tragedy that, even though that species is one of the most endangered in the world, members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas-ICCAT-voted in November to allow 13,500 tonnes of bluefin tuna to be caught next year. That fish will be extinct in two years' time; it cannot be fished at that level, and it is a real mistake to allow it. More needs to be done to prevent illegal tuna fishing and we certainly should not be considering having such big quotas.
	On whaling, I must encourage the Government to take a very robust approach. Just recently, we saw the Japanese make significant progress: they actually managed to win a vote. When that happened, I checked to see what the Government had done to encourage other countries to join the moratorium on whaling. Very little had been done and so I take this opportunity to say to the Minister that he must not take his eye off the ball-we are all agreed that whaling cannot be allowed to be brought back.
	We must ensure that effort goes into bringing on board countries that are not members of the International Whaling Commission. When the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was the relevant Minister, he gave me a written answer that said that, of the 57 countries to which the Government sent their documents, only 15 were non-IWC members. Seven of those have still not joined: Bosnia, Latvia, Malta, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey. I hope that the Minister will ensure that pressure is put on those countries to join the IWC and to ensure that whaling is not brought back.
	On the Marine and Coastal Access Act, I think we all welcome the progress that has been made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) on the excellent job that he did in a very consensual and positive way. He made sure that the Bill was as good as it could possibly be, and I congratulate him on that. One thing is still of critical importance-that other countries respect our efforts to preserve the marine environment. At the moment, they do not have to do so, which is why within six miles of our shore foreign fishermen can be obeying a completely different set of rules to those observed by British fishermen. We saw that with bass pair trawling-a way of fishing that is especially damaging to dolphins and that goes on just out of range. I urge the Government to do everything they can to ensure that the six and 12-mile limits are respected and that other European countries obey the same rules as British fishermen.
	I know that the Minister will be discussing fish stocks in December, and he will know that 88 per cent. of fish stocks in Europe are over-fished, compared to a global average of 25 per cent. Some 30 per cent. of stocks are outside safe biological limits and 14 of the 47 fin fish stocks of importance to UK fishermen are now fished outside those limits. Only eight fin fish stocks are within those limits. If the Minister can do just one thing in his term of office it should be to ensure that those fish stocks are preserved. Everyone agrees that discards are wrong, but until we start to measure what is caught, we will not have the scientific evidence that we need to enforce proper discard bans. The hon. Member who mentioned what his fishermen were doing with larger mesh sizes was right, but at the moment there is no incentive for fishermen to be more selective in their gear-they do it out of the goodness of their hearts-and we need to ensure that, if at all possible, we reward best behaviour. At the moment, that is not happening and we need to do far more.
	Equally, we need to look at how the Government are allocating quota to the under-10-metre fleet. I understand that The Hague convention allocation went to the over-10-metre fleet-

Angus MacNeil: It is that time of year again when the CFP gets its usual bad name. No one in Westminster seems to have a good word for it, but because of the great deities hanging around our necks, it is not, unfortunately, challenged seriously by any of the current big parties in the House, so fishing priorities are diluted. From the perspective of Scottish desires, the priorities are diluted in the British Union. The UK's desires are further diluted in the European Union, but that is the CFP for us. I could go on for far longer, but I notice that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), my ally on this issue, is not in his place, so perhaps I will spare the House, as hon. Members might not have the stomach for it.
	We are where we are. What message I want to leave ringing in the Minister's ears before he goes to Europe? I have a shopping list of things, and I am sure he will be taking notes on them or reading about them tomorrow. First, as has been mentioned, he should protect the mackerel, Scotland's second most important quota after langoustines or nephrops-call them what we will. I hope that the Government at Westminster will not blink on the issue. We hold the cards on mackerel. We should keep those cards and not trade mackerel away for any other species.
	In the wider fishery, Scots fishermen in particular have led the way on conservation issues, as has been mentioned. That should be recognised and rewarded, not subject to the penalisation that so often characterises the common fisheries policy. On the wider philosophy of fishing, a mixed fishery with quotas is just not working. For instance, the Faroese are using an effort-based approach. They seem to be far more successful and are much happier with what is happening with their fishery-they are also outside the common fisheries policy, of course. One of the issues with quotas is that scientists emphasise the lowest stock in a mixed fishery, which leads to a perverse approach to the management of that fishery.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister knows the difficulty with that issue; I can see him nodding.
	Given the time available, I will now raise the issues that are pressing in my area of Na h-Eileanan an Iar-a constituency that I am sure the Minister looks forward to pronouncing at the end of the debate-on the west coast of Scotland. If I can translate from Gaelic, the main point made earlier today by Duncan McInnes of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association is that the squid and crayfish that are currently caught as part of cod recovery should be excluded, as the cod by-catch in the fishery is effectively zero. I hope the Minister will look at that issue. Prawn fisheries in which the cod caught accounts for less than 1.5 per cent. should also be excluded, and those concerned should be given 200 days at sea and the ability to land the by-catch.
	The Minister may need to know that although west coast prawn numbers are currently low, they were also low in 1981, yet 1982 and 1983 were almost record years. Prawn numbers are cyclical. The difficulty with the science is that it often takes snapshots, reporting things as they are and attributing them to whatever reasons or causes come to mind. We really do not know the reasons and causes, but we can learn from history about what happened in the prawn fishery before and see that the years after were successful years.
	With a 30 per cent. by-catch of cod, haddock and whiting in some prawn fisheries, fishermen's leaders feel that the haddock should be removed from that category, because stocks of haddock are so good. The haddock fishery is in a very healthy position. John Hermse of Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association echoed that point. He would like some help to be given to the prawn fishery, which is experiencing some difficulty, with a 15 per cent. increase in megrim and a 30 per cent. increase in monkfish, to help make the fishery pay for those fishermen. This issue is highlighted in an e-mail I was sent earlier today from the fishing vessel Astra in Stornoway. Given the limited time available, I will spare the House from having the e-mail read out, but it underlines the points made by Mallaig and North-West. I will of course make the contents of the e-mail available to the Minister if he would like to read it.
	Mallaig and North-West also made an important point about the continuing catch of dogfish. At one time, these fish were caught and landed, but because of the bureaucratic drop in quota they are now caught and discarded. If that issue could be looked at, it would avoid the wastage of good food being thrown over the side.
	Will the Minister also look at the tagging of nets? It is very annoying to fishermen when their boats are boarded and time is wasted while the inspectors check their nets; they might already have been checked in the very recent past. They could be easily be tagged to indicate that they had been looked at recently, so the lads can get back to their fishing.
	On a lateral issue, I would like the Minister to consider Filipino fishermen, who are a welcome addition on the west coast. They are liked, wanted and needed there. I have been in talks with the Filipino ambassador about this. I hope that the Minister can use his position in government to impress on the UK Border Agency just how important these fishermen are. The immigration Minister was helpful earlier in the year in ensuring an extension when there was a threat of having some of these fishermen removed from the country, but the immigration advisory council has delayed re-categorisation, so we still need a bridging period until this matter can be sorted out. I hope the Minister will ensure that if any fishermen return to the Faroes for the Christmas period, they will be allowed to come back. This issue also affects the processing sector; if these fishermen are not there to catch the fish, there will be no jobs in the processing sector, because the boats will tie up without them.
	I wish the Minister well at the talks-the annual horse-trading, as it is dubbed. Let me say that it might be easier for him if he had alongside him the ally of an independent Scotland, which might happen in the not too distant future. Finally, I would welcome the Minister to Stornoway at any time in the near future.

Alistair Carmichael: Like other Members, I am conscious of the time, so I shall restrict my remarks to a shopping list consisting of a few items. It is unfortunate that we have to do so, because there are bigger issues at stake which deserve the time of the House. It is nothing short of scandalous that we are not able to give them proper ventilation.
	As the Minister prepares for the European Union Norway talks, and subsequently the December Council, let me impress on him again the importance of preserving the mackerel allocation that we currently enjoy. The pelagic fleet is of supreme importance to communities such as Shetland which are highly dependent on fishing. The mackerel is probably the single most important element of the species available to those fishermen, and it should not be used as a pawn in some wider game with Norway. I have observed with some frustration the breakdown in international co-operation in that regard, which has seemed simply to disappear.
	The Minister will recall discussions last year about haddock. That remains a problem for fishermen on the west coast of Scotland, particularly on Orkney, and it seems that we are still far from a solution. However, the situation relating to the west coast quota will be greatly ameliorated if the Minister is able to preserve for the EU the 65 per cent. allocation of the total allowable catch of haddock around Rockall that we currently enjoy. Of course, that should never have been put beyond EU waters. It is nonsensical that haddock and other deep-water species are not party to EU waters, but that is an issue for another day.
	The fishermen whom I represent are particularly concerned about the effect of the 90 per cent. cod quota uptake. When fishermen hit the 90 per cent. allocation, they are required to start using separator gear. That means that they now cannot fish the last 10 per cent.-they are unable to fish up to the full quota. That may be a technical point, but I hope the Minister will accept that it is important and take it to the negotiating table.
	On the shopping list, may I draw to the attention of the House the importance of megrim? When I first started taking part in these debates some eight years ago, it was a species about which we hardly spoke at all, if at all. It is now one of the most important North sea species for the whitefish fleet. About 97 per cent. of the catch in the North sea comes to the United Kingdom, and about 80 per cent. of it comes to Scotland, and just about all of it is landed in Scotland. It has become enormously important, and it is deserving of a degree of attention this year-and, I am sure, in years to come-that it has not, perhaps, had in the past. May I also remind the Minister of the importance of monkfish? Brevitatis causa, I ask him to take on board my comments on that subject in previous fishing debates.
	We are now entering one of the most important phases of the coming years, as we look towards the reform of the common fisheries policy. As the Minister knows, I have a concern that while the Green Paper's analysis of the problem is welcome, it does not seem to accept the Commission's central role in creating that problem. In particular, I have a concern that the Commission seems to think that overcapacity is universal throughout the European Union, but it is not; the Scottish fleet, and in particular the Scottish whitefish fleet, have already experienced drastic decommissioning. We must be given the fullest possible credit for that as we go forward in the reform process.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am surprised that I have so much time in which to speak. I will rattle though my speech, and I apologise to the House if the opening Front-Bench contributions were too long. I, too, would have welcomed more time for the debate.
	I thank hon. Members for making thoughtful contributions, as they always do in such debates. We have covered CFP reform in all its myriad guises, and I welcome the common agreement in the House on the need for radical reform. I reiterate that the UK Government intend to continue to be right at the front end of that reform.
	I welcome the ideas that have been put forward. The common themes that we heard included the need to move away from micro-management-I agree that it is absolutely bizarre that Ministers should sit into the early hours making decisions on twine thickness-and the requirement for fisheries' involvement that is based on good evidence and good science. With the continued support of hon. Members, I hope that we will be successful on some of those matters.
	Many priorities have been suggested for the December Council, just as there were many asks during my earlier meeting with fisheries representatives from the whole of the UK. The EU-Norway negotiations will be important for mackerel, as well as wider issues. The negotiations will be far more difficult this year, but we will continue to engage and fight hard on behalf of the UK's interests, including the interests of the devolved Administrations.
	We have heard about the importance of the fleet to coastal communities and the divergent nature of our fleet in communities. We have also reflected on the importance of fisheries to processing and ancillary industries.
	I must stress the need to work together. There is a strong and effective working relationship among Ministers in the devolved Administrations and me, as the England and UK Fisheries Minister. When we work together and speak with one voice on CFP reform and other negotiations, the UK's position is stronger. It is important that we recognise that and ensure that we take that approach at all times, as we do.
	Good science and partnerships between science and fisheries are also important. As the weeks and months go by, I hope that we will have more ideas about how we can build on what is already being done well, including in the areas of hon. Members who have spoken. I talk to fishermen, and I sent some a video message in the past few days to congratulate them on the work that they were doing.
	We have heard about the importance of the wide remit for people on the sea, including recreational sea anglers. We have also heard about the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, special areas of conservation and special protection areas, and the way to engage wide interests on the ground, including with regard to fisheries. Discards have also been discussed-we have heard about many issues in the contributions of hon. Members, for which I thank them.
	We have largely sung from the same hymn sheet, but I cannot conclude without drawing attention to several discordant notes-I suspect that we are heading into the party political season-and I must correct some errors that were made. Unfortunately, although he made a good contribution, by and large, all the errors were in the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon).
	The hon. Gentleman was factually incorrect by referring to the environmentally responsible fishing pilot scheme as a stock assessment scheme. The ERF pilot was designed to provide evidence on the environmental and economic impact of segments of the onshore fleet-it was not a stock assessment scheme. It has provided hugely valuable data, and the findings will be published in due course. The scheme was originally meant to run from 6 August 2008 until 15 August 2009. In July, I made the decision to extend the scheme with the existing participants. Fishermen were warned in July, however, that the scheme could close at any time, and we closed it because we had obtained sufficient evidence. The data were being analysed on an ongoing basis, and we knew that the participation catch levels were higher than anticipated. In the interests of sustainable fisheries, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when a Minister recognises such a thing, he should stop a scheme.
	Let me correct the hon. Gentleman's point about quota. Under the Hague preference, we gave some quota to the under-10 metres and some to the over-10 metres. Under the decommissioning scheme, however, it all went to the under-10s. He seemed to mix up latent capacity and unused quota, which is important for producers' organisations and some of the over-10s. They distribute that, including through swaps to the under-10s, and it is important that there is such flexibility.
	The MMO has been fully engaged, and that process will be a success. The unions regularly come through my door. They will continue to do so, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would extend that invitation to them. I must congratulate him on summing up the Government's achievements-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).